NewportBarGuy: I_Am_Weasel: I'm now entirely unsure of the term "rosin up the bow".

I'm pretty sure Roger Clemens Vassar Clements could help you with that one.

I wonder if Michelle ever thought about the possibility that Santorum winning a low-turnout caucus may mean that the more independent-leaning folks don't like any of the potential nominees. Obama really shouldn't care how the 30% who are always going to vote Republican feel about him.

"A shot across the brow"!
In your face, 0bama!

monoski: [i44.tinypic.com image 403x239]

Actual CNN.com front page pic

//Buttsex

Filling out the list of 10:

5) He's not Mitt Romney.
6) He's not Newt Gingrich.
10) He's not afraid to challenge science. 

Yep, the GOP's got a real gem on their hands.

Leo Bloom's Freakout: What I wonder from that is, how will that base react if/when he's re-elected? As much as they threw themselves into 2008, I think there was a sense that it was going to be a Bush referendum. They also weren't frothily angry and frightened of the incompetent socialist nazi dictator in chief at the time. There was some uneasiness, but it was nowhere near the religious opposition to Obama that seems to exist now. What's the end result when super mega anti-christ retakes the office?

The ideal scenario? The party brass takes a step back, concedes that they overreached, and openly courts moderates back into the party. Sure, the Teahadists and evangelicals have their fit, but the party frees itself to shift back to the center and the derp brigade can splinter off and have a Jesustastic right-wing circle jerk of their own.

The real world scenario? They blame ACORN, George Soros, or one of their usual boogeymen for rigging the election for Obama while simultaneously concluding that they wouldn't have lost if they'd had a "real" conservative running. Their obstructionist agenda stays the same, and we're stuck with another four years of "Fartbongo is trying to kill granny with gay muslim atheist FEMA ninja commandos".

max_pooper: There is nothing wrong with the system. The lack of participation in the system is the problem. But there's not much we can do about it. If a person is content with not participating and allowing other people to make the decisions that affect their lives it's their right.

Really? There is no system. The Colorado caucus "system" is to show up (make sure you've registered as a Republican at least two months in advance) to one of 3,500-odd caucuses "led by party volunteers" that are described as "pandemonium" where you will "hand in a piece of paper" in "an informal process" on a Tuesday night, and make sure you have an unlimited amount of time to spend on this Tuesday night as there is "no fixed schedule" or time frame. This fine "system" is inside baseball for party insiders and managed to draw a whopping 50,000 people (out of 3.5 million eligible voters in the state) this year.

This is how the parties run their "system," and if it isn't intentionally designed to discourage participation, it certainly accidentally turns out to very effectively discourage participation by most normal, not-party-insider human beings who have lives to live and jobs to go to. But of course, the parties somehow never think to move this process to, say, a weekend, which is when 90% of the people might have time to join the scrum. Nope, it has to be a Tuesday night, and as inconvenient as possible, because the parties are, of course, bending over backwards to encourage wide participation.

Oh, and I can't seem to find any state law regulating how these "informal" votes on "handed-in pieces of paper" are tracked or counted. I suppose that also is "informal" and run by "party volunteers." Somehow, the legislature (also run by "party volunteers") can't manage to make this process less arcane, inconvenient, and opaque. Isn't that an interesting coincidence?

Pbbbbbt.

mrshowrules: If I created a political party and wanted to pick my Presidential candidate through several rounds of rock-paper-scissors, I don't think a State has the right to interfere. The GOP or DNC can pick their candidates any which way they want can't they?

Yes, and they can also make ballot-access laws that are discriminatory against other parties, and you know what? They do! They make it as difficult as possible for any other parties to get on the ballot, have their "party volunteers" running virtually every county clerk's office in the nation, and sleaze their way along to keeping their political duopoly. But, of course, the state has no business telling these private clubs how to run their private affairs, even though they are the state, and run the state, and monopolize (duopolize?) all political, legal, and regulatory functions of the state. And they can pick their candidates - in effect the only candidates we're allowed to vote for - any way they want. And I suppose you're conceding that this process is intelligently designed to discourage participation and quite effectively undemocratically concentrate political power. It's gotten so bad that it's not only the same two parties, but now we have hereditary political dynasties - in effect, royalty.

Canyoneer on what made The Chosen Republican lose: "It's undemocratic and villainous we need something better!'

Canyoneer on the electoral college that made his vote for Dubya more important than the majority vote for Gore: "We live in a republic not a democracy because the tyranny of the majority must be defended against!"

dletter: "But really the biggest signal that was sent is that Barack Obama is in big trouble."

Really.... 40% of a small microcosm of GOP republicans who actually take part in these contests voting for Santorum is a "signal" about Obama?

Whatever gave you that signal, you should send it to the shop, I think it is on the fritz. Should probably have your gaydar checked as well while you are having things looked at.

Amen, bro.

Considering that the total vote count for Santorum in the three States was 187,261 (Mandate? Or "Man Date"?) and that none of the three "contests" produced a single delegate for any candidate (2 non-binding caucuses and 1 non-binding primary) I find all the breathless blather about what they "mean" or what "message" they send to be seriously overblown.

Citation for number and results stated above

Frankly, if there's any message being sent, I think it is this: "We Evangelicals ain't gonna vote for no Mormon! Them's ain't no Christians!"

TheBigJerk: Canyoneer on what made The Chosen Republican lose: "It's undemocratic and villainous we need something better!' Canyoneer on the electoral college that made his vote for Dubya more important than the majority vote for Gore: "We live in a republic not a democracy because the tyranny of the majority must be defended against!" I like to create strawmen because that is easier than argiung that a corrupt political system is not corrupt.

FTFY

It's OK though - all over-the-hill, decadent empires enter this terminal byzantine stage eventually. It's completley natural.

byzantine - adj

often not capitalized

a : of, relating to, or characterized by a devious and usually surreptitious manner of operation

b : intricately involved : labyrinthine

Mugato: Dear Douchebags,

We don't care about social issues.

Love,

Everyone in the country except you


This thing about homosexuals-- you're aware they do a form of touching called "dick-to-dick" and "dick-to-butt-touching" in private? How could you not care and immediately want to stop them as invasively and punitively as possible? How could this not be your number one concern? I just can't conceive.

Zerochance: The real world scenario? They blame ACORN, George Soros, or one of their usual boogeymen for rigging the election for Obama while simultaneously concluding that they wouldn't have lost if they'd had a "real" conservative running. Their obstructionist agenda stays the same, and we're stuck with another four years of "Fartbongo is trying to kill granny with gay muslim atheist FEMA ninja commandos".

I was feeling bleak, and not trying to disregard your ideal scenario, it sounds peachy. But one thing sticks out for me in this that I hope will be the tempering point. The part where possibly there's room for self-blame within the party, even if by accident. That could deflect it from "we need to seek 2^nd amendment remedies" tendency that seems to come with your government being unlawfully or immorally usurped. The thought that they might think they just didn't nominate someone conservative enough actually gives me a little solace.

naveline: Mugato: Dear Douchebags,

We don't care about social issues.

Love,

Everyone in the country except you


This thing about homosexuals-- you're aware they do a form of touching called "dick-to-dick" and "dick-to-butt-touching" in private? How could you not care and immediately want to stop them as invasively and punitively as possible? How could this not be your number one concern? I just can't conceive.

Neither can they.

naveline: This thing about homosexuals-- you're aware they do a form of touching called "dick-to-dick" and "dick-to-butt-touching" in private? How could you not care and immediately want to stop them as invasively and punitively as possible? How could this not be your number one concern? I just can't conceive.

Neither can they!

/Hope that doesn't come across bigoted, low hanging fruit and all that.

Kudos to you GameSprocket, beating me and my need to add a slashie proviso!

mrshowrules: Your real problem is that you have a two-party oligarchy. The only solution to that is a Parliamentary system.

But that can never happen, because this oligopoly would have to vote against itself for that to happen. In some parts of the country - "traditionally" Republican or Democratic "strongholds" - the same party (and famlies) have literally been running the political machines for decades or even more than 100 hundred years. And quite lucratively, too. Do you think these parasites are going to vote themselves out of power?

mrshowrules: Your real problem is that you have a two-party oligarchy. The only solution to that is a Parliamentary system.

Yeah, giving unelected corporations with minimal accountability an official place in their government rather than electing people on an individual basis has totally prevented the UK from doing dickish totalitarian things that arbitrarily screw over the citizenry. It's especially impressive how well it's protected them against searches without cause and censorship.

//Fiddling with procedures to try to gain advantage is a fundamental part of any variant of democracy and can't be driven off by... well, fiddling with specifics of procedure, is what I'm saying here.

canyoneer: TheBigJerk: Canyoneer on what made The Chosen Republican lose: "It's undemocratic and villainous we need something better!' Canyoneer on the electoral college that made his vote for Dubya more important than the majority vote for Gore: "We live in a republic not a democracy because the tyranny of the majority must be defended against!" I like to create strawmen because that is easier than argiung that a corrupt political system is not corrupt.

FTFY

It's OK though - all over-the-hill, decadent empires enter this terminal byzantine stage eventually. It's completley natural.

byzantine - adj

often not capitalized

a : of, relating to, or characterized by a devious and usually surreptitious manner of operation

b : intricately involved : labyrinthine

It's not a straw man if you've actually said it.

Actually that's not fair, I don't remember you specifically joining the other voices of your type screeching during the 2000 election mess, but you *did* lash out in favor of the electoral college and against direct democracy regarding how unfair it is that campaigners could ignore everyone not living in one particular city of one of those flyover states.

"But really the biggest signal that was sent is that Barack Obama is in big trouble."

Even when I'm on vacation I can't seem to muster this kind of detachment from reality.

The GOP has no viable candidate. The chimera party is ripping itself apart at the seems.

"One across the bow" ; getting a string of santorum to stretch across both buttcheeks. Doesn't matter which person.

TFA:"I think what we saw is that the voters haven't made up their mind yet on who the Republican nominee should be," Bachmann said. "But really the biggest signal that was sent is that Barack Obama is in big trouble."

Disconnected from reality much crazy biatch?

No no no. "Bow" in nautical terms means the front, the nose.

A shot across the bow is therefore a money shot.

Ah, my mistake. Ok then, getting a string to stretch and hang across both eyebrows?